6 ms·

> we gotta set the house on fire Context doesn't matter, they can't afford this being on the platform and being interpreted with different context. I think fla

by comboy 3y ago

> we gotta set the house on fire Context doesn't matter, they can't afford this being on the platform and being interpreted with different context. I think flagging it is understandable given their scale (I still wouldn't use them, but that's a different story).

slantedview 3y ago
Have you seen political facebook? It's a trainwreck of content meant to incite violence, and is perfectly allowed so long as it only targets some people (ex: minorities, certain foreigners) and not others. The idea that Facebook is playing it safe with their content moderation is nonsense. They are a political actor the same as any large company, and they make decisions accordingly.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago
  [dead]
- comboy 3y ago
  I have not, I'm not using it at all, so yes that context may put parent comment in a different light, but still I'd say the issue would be comments that you mention not being moderated rather than the earlier one being moderated.
- giancarlostoro 3y ago
  I think this is how they saw my comment, but the human who reviewed it was clearly not doing their job properly.
- H4ZB7 3y ago
  [flagged]
pixelbyindex 3y ago
> Context doesn't matter, they can't afford this being on the platform and being interpreted with different context I have to disagree. The idea that allowing human interaction to proceed as it would without policing presents a threat to their business or our culture is not something I have seen strong enough argument for. Allowing flagging / reporting by the users themselves is a better path to content control. IMO the more we train ourselves that context doesn't matter, the more we will pretend that human beings are just incapable of humor, everything is offensive, and trying to understand others before judging their words is just impossible, so let the AI handle it.
- comboy 3y ago
  I wondered about that. Ideally I would allow everything to be said. The most offensive things ever. It's a simple rule and people would get desensitized to written insults. You can't get desensitized to physical violence affecting you. But then you have problems like doxing. Or even without doxing promoting acts that affect certain groups or certain places. Which certain amount of people will follow, just because of the scale. You can say these people would be responsible, but with scale you can hurt without breaking the law. So where would you draw the line? Would you moderate anything?
  - bentcorner 3y ago
    Welcome to the Content Moderation Learning Curve: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you... I don't envy anyone who has to figure all this out. IMO free hosting does not scale.
  - hansvm 3y ago
    Scale is just additional context. The words by themselves aren't an issue, but the surrounding context makes it worth moderating.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    When the 2020 election shenanigans happened, Zuckerberg originally made a pretty stout defense of free speech absolutism. And then the political firestorm that ensued, from people with the power to regulate Meta, quickly changed his talking points.
- ChadNauseam 3y ago
  I agree with you, but don't forget that John Oliver got on Last Week Tonight to accuse Facebook's lax moderation of causing a genocide in Myanmar. The US media environment was delusionally anti-facebook so I don't blame them for being overly censorious
  - ragequittah 3y ago
skippyboxedhero 3y ago
Have heard about this happening on multiple other platforms too. Substack is human moderated but the moderators are from another culture so will often miss forms of humour that do not exist in their own culture (the biggest one being non-literal comedy, very literal cultures do not have this, this is likely why the original post was flagged...they would interpret that as someone telling another person to literally set their house on fire). I am not sure why this isn't concerning: large platforms deny your ability to express yourself based on the dominant culture in the place that happens to be the only place where you can economically employ moderators...I will turn this around, if the West began censoring Indonesian TV based on our cultural norms, would you have a problem with this? The flip side of this is also that these moderators will often let "legitimate targets" be abused on the platform because that behaviour is acceptable in their country, is that ok?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I mean, most of FAANG has been US values being globalized. Biased, but I don't think that's the worst thing. But I'm sure Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela, and a lot of quasi-religious or -authoritarian states would disagree.
  - ragequittah 3y ago
    >I mean, most of FAANG has been US values being globalized. Well given that we know Russia, China, and North Korea all have massive campaigns to misinform everyone on these platforms, I think I disagree with the premise. It's spread a sort of fun house mirror version of US values, and the consequences seem to be piling up. The recent elections in places like Argentina, Italy, and The Netherlands seem to show that far-right populism is becoming a theme. Anecdotally it's taking hold in Canada as well. People are now worried about problems they have never encountered. The Republican debate yesterday spending a significant amount of time on who has the strictest bathroom laws comes to top of mind at how powerful and ridiculous these social media bubbles are.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
mcpackieh 3y ago
[flagged]
VHRanger 3y ago
As commenter below said, this sounds reasonable until you remember that Facebook content incited Rohingya genocide and the Jan 6th coup attempt. So, yeah, context does matter it seems

by comboy 3y ago

slantedview 3y ago

Have you seen political facebook? It's a trainwreck of content meant to incite violence, and is perfectly allowed so long as it only targets some people (ex: minorities, certain foreigners) and not others. The idea that Facebook is playing it safe with their content moderation is nonsense. They are a political actor the same as any large company, and they make decisions accordingly.

dumpsterlid 3y ago
[dead]
comboy 3y ago
I have not, I'm not using it at all, so yes that context may put parent comment in a different light, but still I'd say the issue would be comments that you mention not being moderated rather than the earlier one being moderated.
giancarlostoro 3y ago
I think this is how they saw my comment, but the human who reviewed it was clearly not doing their job properly.
H4ZB7 3y ago
[flagged]

pixelbyindex 3y ago

> Context doesn't matter, they can't afford this being on the platform and being interpreted with different context I have to disagree. The idea that allowing human interaction to proceed as it would without policing presents a threat to their business or our culture is not something I have seen strong enough argument for. Allowing flagging / reporting by the users themselves is a better path to content control. IMO the more we train ourselves that context doesn't matter, the more we will pretend that human beings are just incapable of humor, everything is offensive, and trying to understand others before judging their words is just impossible, so let the AI handle it.

comboy 3y ago
I wondered about that. Ideally I would allow everything to be said. The most offensive things ever. It's a simple rule and people would get desensitized to written insults. You can't get desensitized to physical violence affecting you. But then you have problems like doxing. Or even without doxing promoting acts that affect certain groups or certain places. Which certain amount of people will follow, just because of the scale. You can say these people would be responsible, but with scale you can hurt without breaking the law. So where would you draw the line? Would you moderate anything?
- bentcorner 3y ago
  Welcome to the Content Moderation Learning Curve: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you... I don't envy anyone who has to figure all this out. IMO free hosting does not scale.
- hansvm 3y ago
  Scale is just additional context. The words by themselves aren't an issue, but the surrounding context makes it worth moderating.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  When the 2020 election shenanigans happened, Zuckerberg originally made a pretty stout defense of free speech absolutism. And then the political firestorm that ensued, from people with the power to regulate Meta, quickly changed his talking points.
ChadNauseam 3y ago
I agree with you, but don't forget that John Oliver got on Last Week Tonight to accuse Facebook's lax moderation of causing a genocide in Myanmar. The US media environment was delusionally anti-facebook so I don't blame them for being overly censorious
- ragequittah 3y ago

skippyboxedhero 3y ago

Have heard about this happening on multiple other platforms too. Substack is human moderated but the moderators are from another culture so will often miss forms of humour that do not exist in their own culture (the biggest one being non-literal comedy, very literal cultures do not have this, this is likely why the original post was flagged...they would interpret that as someone telling another person to literally set their house on fire). I am not sure why this isn't concerning: large platforms deny your ability to express yourself based on the dominant culture in the place that happens to be the only place where you can economically employ moderators...I will turn this around, if the West began censoring Indonesian TV based on our cultural norms, would you have a problem with this? The flip side of this is also that these moderators will often let "legitimate targets" be abused on the platform because that behaviour is acceptable in their country, is that ok?

ethbr1 3y ago
I mean, most of FAANG has been US values being globalized. Biased, but I don't think that's the worst thing. But I'm sure Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela, and a lot of quasi-religious or -authoritarian states would disagree.
- ragequittah 3y ago
  >I mean, most of FAANG has been US values being globalized. Well given that we know Russia, China, and North Korea all have massive campaigns to misinform everyone on these platforms, I think I disagree with the premise. It's spread a sort of fun house mirror version of US values, and the consequences seem to be piling up. The recent elections in places like Argentina, Italy, and The Netherlands seem to show that far-right populism is becoming a theme. Anecdotally it's taking hold in Canada as well. People are now worried about problems they have never encountered. The Republican debate yesterday spending a significant amount of time on who has the strictest bathroom laws comes to top of mind at how powerful and ridiculous these social media bubbles are.
  - ethbr1 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

[flagged]

VHRanger 3y ago

As commenter below said, this sounds reasonable until you remember that Facebook content incited Rohingya genocide and the Jan 6th coup attempt. So, yeah, context does matter it seems